History would suggest not long.
https://reason.com/2020/06/03/defen...ts-trump-on-using-military-to-quell-protests/
https://reason.com/2020/06/03/defen...ts-trump-on-using-military-to-quell-protests/
How Soon Before He’s Told “You’re Fired”
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Yeah, his longevity is now in peril.
What is the last resort?
When the US capitol building is burned to the ground?
Last edited:
Honest questions, I’m genuinely curious what your thoughts are: Do you think a leader will make more reliable decisions when he surrounds himself with sycophantic “yes men” who never question a statement or decision and know they will be released from duty at the first sign of questioning a decision? Or is he more likely to make properly vetted decisions when he is told by a subordinate that the subordinate thinks the leader is going down the wrong road?
The book on Trump is he loathes Yes men as much as he does recalcitrant resistors to his agenda.
If things worsen, which they surely will, Esper will be canned and someone more aligned with Badger will be installed.
Nothing unique here.
It's big league politics. Nothing personal.
Thank you for your reply. It was thoughtful. But it didn’t answer the question. What do YOU think is a better characteristic of a leader? One with very thin skin who bridles at resistance from subordinates? Or one who listens thoughtfully to opinions offered by subordinates when their opinion runs counter to what his “gut” tells him?
Personally, the latter. Then he can weigh all the info/data to formulate a final decision.
Dwight Eisenhower was genius in using that methodology.
He hated General Montgomery but, that's for another day, another time.
Trump, like most CEOs, don't like subordinates coming out behind him and subverting or sabotaging him. It's OK to share your thoughts behind the scenes but when the decision is made to begin speaking publicly, then STFU or resign. When I had employees, I listened to their positions but once a decision was made I expected them to support it in public, keep their mouths shut or GTFO.
Absolutely! Agree 100%. He should resign, let someone else carry out the policy, and watch as we are slowly and methodically turned into a police state. Trump won the election fair and square. He’s the man we want running things. This is a democracy we live in, majority rules, and the majority says follow Trump down any road he wants to take us down. His subordinates should either dutifully carry out his policies or GTFO.
Cool Dan, I so like it when you reveal your resolute, butch side of your personality.
Like smelling napalm in the morning...
It's like, freedom.
Election is a long way off so who knows what will happen. But your talking about a public who's attention span lasts less time then it takes to get online and place an overnight order at Amazon. Trump has flipped at some of the betting houses and is a +105 now, which isn't good. That said he is at his worst cooped up and not out at rallies or meeting other leaders.
What will happen to him that doesn't happen to shitbags like the ex-rodent in chief is no matter what he does, it will be wrong so as soon as one can get focused on that then much of what happens doesn't seem near as egregious.
The police state you speak of is right before our eyes and it's coming from politicians using the virus to enforce their police state and unconstitutional edicts. If Biden and the dems get elected you'll get to see it much more up close and personal.
Robert Duvall is arguably my favorite actor of all time!Cool Dan, I so like it when you reveal your resolute, butch side of your personality.
Like smelling napalm in the morning...
It's like, freedom.
The Dems are purposely not policing the rioters in hope of Trump bringing in the military and hoping the military kills someone so they can blame Trump.
First they use the initial shutdown of the economy to extend the shutdown and arrest people without masks, etc...
Then the rioting starts and they arrest no one. They want the military in.
The hypocrisy is so apparent, they hate Trump more than they love this country and they love power.
Everything they do is to make things worse and blame it on Trump.
First they use the initial shutdown of the economy to extend the shutdown and arrest people without masks, etc...
Then the rioting starts and they arrest no one. They want the military in.
The hypocrisy is so apparent, they hate Trump more than they love this country and they love power.
Everything they do is to make things worse and blame it on Trump.
Last edited:
Absolutely! Once again I agree with you 100%! The difference is (and the really scary part for me) Biden will be nothing but a puppet whose strings are pulled by people unknown and hidden from sight. At least with Trump we will know who is selling our liberty down the river.
I think you are spot on in what you said, but it does not answer the questions being asked on this thread.
He was great in Second Hand Lions.
The bar fight scene was epic.
He does not have to fire him...if Trump wants to send in the military he can. Anyone that disagrees with the CIC would basically not be following an order and by default would be out of the military immediately.
For some reason my favorite role for him was in the movie Tender Mercies. There is something about that movie and his role in it that gets me every time I see it.
I don't think he fires him, does not have to. But if he does because he believes he will no longer follow military command he has that right.
He has that right, no question about it. He has the right to fire him for any reason he chooses, that goes without saying. But you still haven’t offered your opinion on the proper method of leadership. There’s no wrong answer. I’m curious what your answer would be.
Well, I would want to talk to someone before letting them go. That would be my advice for Trump. I think he should talk and gain an understanding and see if they can work together. If not, c-ya. Might as well not wait for someone to disobey a military order if they tell you up-front they are going to disobey an order.
If you want a yes / no question on this I do not have one. I gave my opinion and advice.
THIS, a thousand times this.
Fair enough! What do you think a mayor or governor should do, how should he react when a sheriff says he’s not going to have his deputies enforce one of their unconstitutional edicts? I personally applaud those sheriffs. But there are many others that think they should be replaced because they should obey an order from a higher up. I know it is not the same thing, sheriffs are elected and are not necessarily subordinate to mayors or governors, but you get the point, don’t you? If all the political leadership is not on the same page chaos might ensue. So what about those rebellious sheriffs? How are mayors or governors supposed to maintain order if the people hired to enforce that order question their authiority?
If you publicly undermine the decisions of your superiors you are a cancer to the organization. People have a very hard time with this - I struggle with it at times.
An organization that is not unified in purpose and direction is an organization that will be less effective, less rewarding, less enjoyable, and possibly, ultimately, a failure.
If there is something illegal or unethical going on, the situation is obviously different, but it’s still better to try and address that internally first if possible.
According to the link shared in the OP, there are questions about the president’s ability to dispense armed military personnel against American citizens except under extraordinary circumstances. That’s what Esper is publicly saying: the situation has not risen to those circumstances.
For the sake of argument let’s suppose Esper is right, but dutifully resigns or is fired, Trump installs a yes man who deploys military units who react like military units on a battlefield during the course of a combination protest/riot, and open fire on American citizens, only to find after the fact that the Supreme Court rules Trump was out of line deploying those troops, the situation had not risen to those extraordinary circumstances, but - oops, too late! - the damage has been done. What then? Would impeachment be proper? Would the president be criminally liable for such an outlandish action? Should he be? How about the SecDef who “obeyed” the decision? Or the commanders who obeyed the SecDef? Or the troops who opened fire? How would justice be dispensed in such a scenario? Are those not questions that should be put in front of the president before he goes off half cocked to prove his small hands don’t mean what we all know they mean?
Is Trump coming to Ponca City to personally take away your liberty?
No he's not.
He's looking at troubled places like NYC. Do the citizens of NYC currently enjoy ANY liberty?
No they don't. They are either in the criminal mob or at the mercy of the criminal mob. And the fine government of NYC won't do a damn thing to help restore liberty.
That's what Trump is working to address. Time will tell if he turns NYC into his own personal police state, but history says that Trump won't do that.
Certainly, rescuing people from criminal mobs in particular cities is not the same as selling out "our" liberties... is it?
Am I missing something?
I was always told on this board that America is a republic and the states have a right to govern themselves.
people defending the 2nd ammendment even talked about taking up their guns if the federal govt interfered in states internal matters. Therefore do then Americans fight the military deployed by the President.
No, I wouldn't say it’s in a free fall. More like a foggy mist slowly descending in such a subtle manner that the hoi polli doesn’t even notice, and won’t notice until it has completely enclosed them in it’s warm embrace.
That is one thing I envy about lib dems, their locked in unity, cohesion.
So tight is that unity, they could announce an alternative fuel source that involves puppies, kittens and old white men from the Boomer generation, and an industrial wood chipper.
In unwavering unison they'd be like...
"Oh, let's do that!"
So tight is that unity, they could announce an alternative fuel source that involves puppies, kittens and old white men from the Boomer generation, and an industrial wood chipper.
In unwavering unison they'd be like...
"Oh, let's do that!"
For as long as he’s been president I’ve worried Trump is going to get played by his intellectual superiors. So far my worries have been unfounded (thank God!).
But it is very difficult, for me at least, to trust a man as a leader who openly and proudly avows that he rules by what his gut tells him to do.
On this board it has been thrown out as a possibility the left is hoping Trump will deploy armed military to patrol our streets, gestapo style, troops on every corner, check points for every movement, produce your papers, you get the drift, the thinking being the citizenry will finally understand the true character of this man, that he’s a wannabe dictator, something the left has recognized from day one, but the general public is too distracted or stupid to see for itself. Maybe the left will get lucky and some troops will shoot some civilians. That strikes me as imminently a possibility, and with his normal bellicose bullying rhetoric he looks like he might get duped into going down that path. If that’s the case don’t you think it is prudent for some of his underlines to try and reign him in before he paints himself into a corner and actually has to do one of those incredibly dumb things he is always threatening to do? Even if it means taking your concern public? Because you could resign, but he’ll just replace you with someone with no will to tell him what he is proposing is dangerous for the future of the country, not to mention dangerous for his political career and legacy?
I remember Harry Cary doing baseball broadcasts saying the hitter is 0 for his last twelve at bats, so that means he’s due to get a hit this time. The Democrats/leftists are 0 for a zillion against Trump. Does that mean they’re due to get a hit this time? I sure hope not. It would be the equivalent of a grand slam. And I don’t think any of us want to see that.
No President can have people in his cabinet giving public speeches that are in direct opposition to the President. Behind closed doors is one thing, in public, especially in this overly political, hyper partisan media environment it's completely unacceptable. If anything it should make people question this guy's judgement because he just made things worse. Hell, look at your reaction? Your TDS is off the charts.
It both sad and hilarious that the anti Trump at all cost people have not figured Trump out yet. Trump hasn't sent the military in to quell the riots, he threatened to send troops and brought them to Washington in a show of force. He showed the rioters what the consequences would be and as a result the protest have toned down the violence, which is exactly what was needed. It sickens me that people like you attack the president but have little to nothing to say about those rioting and are silent on the death of the police that were just doing their jobs. Your TDS has screwed up your priorities.
If I was a Sheriff or anyone else and thought something was unconstitutional here is what I would do:
1. I would get an attorney and have some legal research performed to see if it was unconstitutional, might get it done for free given the politics involved. Should ask the county, town, city, (or other proper governmental agency) etc.. to get a legal opinion, and request this in writing expressing your concerns, this is probably the first step and respectfully ask your superiors to get this legal opinion. If they refuse...I have paid out of my own pocket before for some legal or other professional advice in regards to my position and directives from those above me. I have been exposed to some wrong doing in my career. Being in certain positions places you in this position, it comes with the job. You either stand up to the sharks and bullies or you do not.
2. I would not go public. I would have these legal conversations with the powers to be in private, if the legal findings say unconstitutional, I tell the powers to be that I do not want any personal liability (civil or criminal) in performance of my duties and I am not following these orders under the advice of counsel without protecting myself from these liabilities.
3. I tell them if they want me to carry out these orders, they need to provide to me in writing that they want me to carry out these orders despite legal counsel advice that these orders are unconstitutional. I make them acknowledge in writing they know what they are asking me to do is against sound legal advice with the high legal probability it is against the law. Usually, the powers to be will not do this and stand down, this has worked for me 100% of the time. Usually these people are bullies and cowards and hope you are dumb enough to be left holding the bag if it blows up and take the fall and follow orders because you need a job.
4. If they fire me, I am going to sue the ever lovin shit out of them and expose them.
5. You also have the option if even if they give you what you want in 3 above - approval from above in writing acknowledging the flaws in their orders, you can then resign having in writing their admittance they know what they want is wrong but want to go forward anyway. After you resign sue them and go public, this might be following your conscious so the constitution is upheld, bring to light wrong doing, get wrong doers out, and perhaps hope you are reinstated to your position for being a truthful whistle blower and upholding the constitution.
Oh, please, stop with the TDS bull. I’ve spent more time on this board defending Trump than attacking him. How many times do I have to say I think he’s about an average president, done both good and bad. I applaud and defend the good and criticize and ridicule the bad and horrendously stupid things he says.
I sincerely hope you are right and he does not deploy armed military personnel on the streets. The problem I have with Trump is he is such a bull in the china shop you can’t know when he’s going to snap. And I completely understand that’s one of the things that so endears him to you, it keeps your perceived political enemies on a constant state of alert. It also works to keep the country as divided as it can get short of civil war. And, yes, I know and agree the left/Democrats do it too, at least as badly as Trump. But eventually an adult needs to step up and paddle all their heinies. I suppose I am too naive to expect the leader of the free world to be that adult.
That’s a very well thought out, well organized plan. A couple of questions: who are these legal minds you seek out to tell you whether the edict is constitutional? Lawyers? They’re really nothing but hired guns paid to justify your actions or point of view. Why would their opinion matter more to a sheriff than the sheriff’s own? Surely he knows the constitution, he swore an oath to defend it.
Second, suppose the sheriff is convinced to his core the edict being handed down is unconstitutional. You say he should step aside and let the edict be enacted upon despite his objections. That does not seem reasonable to me. What’s that saying about what happens when good people do nothing?
Last edited:
Well, any government agency should have its own lawyers and for areas of expertise outside of what they have in-house, access to legal firms that have the knowledge. I had to hire a lawyer out of Washington, D.C. one time find someone with the perfect expertise I needed, this was for a non-criminal matter. I shook all the trees of all of my professional and legal connections and got some good direction.
If I was the Sheriff or anyone else, good chance you have some good legal connections. If not, I start researching larger regional / local firms and seeing if they have the expertise I need. I have had really good luck with law firms making recommendations to me to other attorneys or practices that they know is really good in an area their firm may not be.
It might take some work, but you can find attorneys. If this was a national issue that was going to garner attention, you might have some big names willing to take it on for free. Doubt I would ever be in that situation. I have a hunch Dr. Baden did the autopsy for the Floyd family for free, no doubt he did it for all the right reasons and wanting justice, but some of your big attorneys will want true justice and if they are passionate about the law and want the right outcome, they enjoy researching and arguing the law, and they like to be on the right side of an issue.
